Konet v. Roberts, 2016 Ohio 1306

Kenneth and Jack, friends, took recreational fishing trips together in Jack’s 16-foot boat; they routinely "hooked" a known sunken bridge to anchor the boat while fishing.
On October 15, 2013, while attempting to hook the bridge, Ken was kneeling in the bow dragging a J‑shaped hook on a rope; when the hook re‑engaged, Ken tied the rope to a cleat. The hook came loose, they tried again, and on the third attempt Jack powered/turned the boat faster than usual.
While Ken’s hand was between the rope and the cleat the rope went taut and amputated the fingertip and broke two other fingers. Ken did not allege intentional harm; he described the event as a mistake.
Ken and his wife sued Jack for negligence and loss of consortium; Jack moved for summary judgment arguing the recreational use/primary assumption of risk doctrine bars recovery unless conduct was reckless or intentional.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Jack; the Eleventh District affirmed, holding (1) hooking the bridge was part of the recreational fishing activity, (2) the injury was an ordinary/foreseeable risk of that activity, and (3) no evidence of reckless or intentional conduct existed to defeat summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs were engaged in the recreational activity when injury occurred	Konet: they were only preparing to fish (anchoring is preparatory), so recreational‑use defense shouldn’t apply	Roberts: hooking the bridge is an integral, customary part of their boat‑fishing trips	Court: Hooking the bridge was part of the recreational activity; defense applies
Whether the injury was an ordinary/foreseeable risk of the recreational activity	Konet: injury from rope/boat speed was not an ordinary, foreseeable risk here	Roberts: rope handling/anchoring are foreseeable, customary risks of boating/fishing	Court: Injury arose from a foreseeable, customary risk of boating/fishing
Whether genuine issue of reckless or intentional conduct precluded summary judgment	Konet: Jack drove faster than usual and failed to ensure rope was untied or Ken secure — raises factual dispute as to recklessness	Roberts: conduct was negligent at most; no conscious disregard shown	Court: No evidence of conscious disregard; summary judgment proper

Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (summary judgment standard and purpose)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s and nonmovant’s burdens on summary judgment)
Leibreich v. A.J. Refrigeration, Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 266 (1993) (summary judgment standard)
Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95 (1990) (participants assume ordinary risks; recovery only for reckless or intentional conduct)
Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102 (1990) (foreseeable, customary conduct in sports not actionable negligence among participants)
Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427 (1996) (primary assumption of risk means no duty is owed for ordinary risks)
Gentry v. Craycraft, 101 Ohio St.3d 141 (2004) (recovery dependent on whether conduct was reckless or intentional)
Anderson v. City of Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (2012) (definition of reckless conduct)